NationStates Jolt Archive

The question of who was greatest military commander pops up fairly frequently here. The answers dwell almost exclusively on ground commanders (for justified historical reasons). The great naval commanders appears less frequently. But I have yet to see the great aerial warfare commanders. So who are the greatest?

I'll start with: Curtis LeMay and William "Billy" Mitchell.

The question of who was greatest military commander pops up fairly frequently here. The answers dwell almost exclusively on ground commanders (for justified historical reasons). The great naval commanders appears less frequently. But I have yet to see the great aerial warfare commanders. So who are the greatest?

I'll start with: Curtis LeMay and William "Billy" Mitchell.

dowding.

Dowding, first integrated Air Defence network,

I really don't see much other choice than Dowding, there should have been no way for the RAF to win the Battle of Britain but because of him they did.

I really don't see much other choice than Dowding, there should have been no way for the RAF to win the Battle of Britain but because of him they did.

That and the fantastic efforts of RAF Pilots, Commenwealth, and much forgotten Polish and exiled European Airforce Pilots, (as well as the US volounteers).

I suppose we could add William Douglas (Big Wing Strategy), I cannot remeber if Douglas became RAF Commander

Agreed, Dowding.

Douglas replaced him later on as head of RAF Fighter Command.

Another candidate, Wing Commander Guy Gibson, who led Operation Chastise, The Dambusters Raid.

Agreed, Dowding.

Douglas replaced him later on as head of RAF Fighter Command.

Another candidate, Wing Commander Gur Gibson, who led Operation Chastise, The Dambusters Raid.

Gosh Guy (hard nosed bastard) Gibson

but then again the dam busters raid while amazing caused barnes wallis to curb his inventiveness (what about the RAF Hoop-La Cruise bomb <G>) although te Tall boy and grad slam devices where fantastic, and wallis was understadably agrieved with the toll of the dambuster raids, some of his previous tabled designs were breathtaking in their scope (seeing as at the time UK was a nation facing invasion)

Agreed, Dowding.

Douglas replaced him later on as head of RAF Fighter Command.

Another candidate, Wing Commander Guy Gibson, who led Operation Chastise, The Dambusters Raid.

Although due to the change of tactics by the Luftwaffe, Dowding and Douglas would be applicable in eiter case, conservation of pilots and resources against swift counters against strategic forces. (Hey I am not a fighter commader what would I know)

edited due to ommisions of certain letters as it is a long time since I used a mechanical typewriter and the contacts on this piece of cheese keyb. blows

Gosh Guy (hard nosed bastard) Gibson

but then again the dam busters raid while amazing caused barnes wallis to curb his inventiveness (what about the RAF Hoop-La Cruise bomb <G>) although te Tall boy and grad slam devices where fantastic, and wallis was understadably agrieved with the toll of the dambuster raids, some of his previous tabled designs were breathtaking in their scope (seeing as at the time UK was a nation facing invasion)

I don't think Wallis's curbness of inventiveness had anything to do with Gibson, but rather the deaths sustained in delivering his invention to it's target.

Curtis LeMay and "Bomber" Harris

I don't think Wallis's curbness of inventiveness had anything to do with Gibson, but rather the deaths sustained in delivering his invention to it's target.

True the deaths on the raid were the primary cause, but could a more leniant commander have reduced death, but at the same time (and there is no doubting Gibsons' courage and commitment) could a less commited commander have carried it off at all, it was a dicks in the wasps nest raid after all

True the deaths on the raid were the primary cause, but could a more leniant commander have reduced death, but at the same time (and there is no doubting Gibsons' courage and commitment) could a less commited commander have carried it off at all, it was a dicks in the wasps nest raid after all

A more lenient commander may not have had the 'steel' to carry out a raid that needed discipline to succeed, as you said:


it was a dicks in the wasps nest raid after all

lol

Curtis LeMay and "Bomber" Harris

Hmmm someone is a strategic bombing fan it seems ;)

Bomber Harris did invent things (Firestorms for example), his reluctace to remove bombers from his Vergeltungswaffe strategy, might have lengthened allied involvement in the European theatre.

Who was the commader of the remnants of 802 Squadron on Malta, or did it ome under Cunnigham

LeMay

Curtis LeMay and "Bomber" Harris
War Criminals.

I'd nominate Manfred von Richthofen. It doesn't explicitly mention what level commanders, and Richthofen kinda invented the idea of formation-flying and covering each others' backs with the Jasta system. Plus he was good for morale.

Otherwise, that Brit who organised the UK's air defense system, Dowding, was pretty good at his job too.

LeMay...LeMay.....

Wasn't he that asshat in charge (Chief of Staff?) and advocating a full scale invasion of Cuba during the Cuban Missile Crisis?

LeMay...LeMay.....

Wasn't he that asshat in charge (Chief of Staff?) and advocating a full scale invasion of Cuba during the Cuban Missile Crisis?
Yep. Sounds like a thing he'd do. He also sent US Nuclear Bombers to fly over the North Pole towards Russia, "inadvertently" flying into Soviet Air Space and out again...

He also called the burning of hundreds of thousands of civilians "fire jobs"...and one of his famous quotes is "There are no innocent civilians, so it doesn't bother me so much to be killing innocent bystanders."

Yep. Sounds like a thing he'd do. He also sent US Nuclear Bombers to fly over the North Pole towards Russia, "inadvertently" flying into Soviet Air Space and out again...

He also called the burning of hundreds of thousands of civilians "fire jobs"...and one of his famous quotes is "There are no innocent civilians, so it doesn't bother me so much to be killing innocent bystanders."

Oye...Another reason for me not to like him very much.

Based on his idiotic advice alone during Cuban Missile Crisis, I cannot advocate him being considered a 'Great' air commander.

Oye...Another reason for me not to like him very much.

Based on his idiotic advice alone during Cuban Missile Crisis, I cannot advocate him being considered a 'Great' air commander.

Actually, I think what you are refering to is the advice he gave kennedy about vietnam, when he said something to the effect of: "I recommend bombing those bastards back to the stoneage."

Still, he brought Japan to its knees. Can't argue with results.

Edit: And oh yeah Dowding. Props to Harris too for the strategic campaign of '43.

Actually, I think what you are refering to is the advice he gave kennedy about vietnam, when he said something to the effect of: "I recommend bombing those bastards back to the stoneage."

Still, he brought Japan to its knees. Can't argue with results.

No, no! It was definetly about the Cuban Missile Crisis. He wanted a full scale invasion to take out the missiles, Castro and everything anti-US in general... and kinda hoped that a confrontation would be sparked with Khrushchev and the Soviet Union, resulting in a probable nuclear war with the USSR.

The White House tapes from the Kennedy era and the transcripts are fascinating to listen to. :)

What is it with people thinking Strategic Bombing could work?
Isn't it fairly obvious looking at the production capacity of Germany (http://www.historylearningsite.co.uk/weapons_and_manpower.htm) that the bombing campaigns didn't do the job? Plus everyone from Keynes to Galbraith investigated this and found that the bombing did not shorten the war.

I'd say that the Soviets taking over Romanian oil fields hurt Germany's war effort more than all the bombings combined.

I'l stir up some controversy...Goering.

I'l stir up some controversy...Goering.
Well, let's have a look.

Britain: Well, he quit when he almost had the RAF destroyed, and instead proceeded to bomb cities, not only making the Brits angry but also doing no more damage to the British war machine.

Africa: He failed to organise his planes properly to end Allied convoys, to destroy Malta and to support the Afrikakorps.

Russia: Don't even get me started...suffice to say that the Luftwaffe lost all its remaining puff there.

Allied Bombing: He failed to mount any challenge at all to the raids on German civilians (and occasionally they might have hit a factory too, who knows).

Personally: A pompous prick, a fat bastard, wore a baby-blue uniform and a lot of jewellery.

In short: One of the main reasons Germany lost the war.

If you were looking for the worst ever air force commander, you got him.

What is it with people thinking Strategic Bombing could work?
Isn't it fairly obvious looking at the production capacity of Germany (http://www.historylearningsite.co.uk/weapons_and_manpower.htm) that the bombing campaigns didn't do the job? Plus everyone from Keynes to Galbraith investigated this and found that the bombing did not shorten the war.

I'd say that the Soviets taking over Romanian oil fields hurt Germany's war effort more than all the bombings combined.

Stop making unverifiable historical claims. You act like bombing had no effect on war production. Which is palpably untrue.

Anyway, strategic bombing is more than just reduction of overall production capacity. It's to do with logistics and critical paths. Especially when co-incident with land operations. And it does work.

Also, germans should be glad that most of the bombing was strategic.

Douglas Bader.

One of the pioneers of RAF tactics in WW2, ace in the Battle of Britain, led the first 'Big Wing', got shot down and taken prisoner and made a nuisance of himself for the rest of the war (also came up with the most hare-brained escape plan EVER).

All that with only about half a leg left from a flying accident in the twenties.

Well, let's have a look.

Britain: Well, he quit when he almost had the RAF destroyed, and instead proceeded to bomb cities, not only making the Brits angry but also doing no more damage to the British war machine.

Africa: He failed to organise his planes properly to end Allied convoys, to destroy Malta and to support the Afrikakorps.

Russia: Don't even get me started...suffice to say that the Luftwaffe lost all its remaining puff there.

Allied Bombing: He failed to mount any challenge at all to the raids on German civilians (and occasionally they might have hit a factory too, who knows).

Personally: A pompous prick, a fat bastard, wore a baby-blue uniform and a lot of jewellery.

In short: One of the main reasons Germany lost the war.

If you were looking for the worst ever air force commander, you got him.

Well, the question said "Greatest air force commander?", and Goering is one of the greatest commanders, albeit in a negative sense. He was one of the "greatest foulups"; since the question doesn't dictate the commander's successes, my answer stays.

Stop making unverifiable historical claims. You act like bombing had no effect on war production. Which is palpably untrue.
Have you looked at the link?
Regardless of any effect the bombings might have had, production went up (by quite a bit) until 1945, when Allied Forces entered German territory, and the war was ofter after five months.

http://www.feldgrau.com/econo.html

My argument is simply that it did not shorten the war, it did not dent the industrial capacity (simply because there are ways to get around it - Britain did the same under German bombing), but it did kill hundreds of thousands of innocent bystanders, and therefore it was not justified and it was not a good policy.
The responsible Generals who did not see this obvious fact didn't do so because of a personal hatred of the country they were bombing (or in LeMay's case, some psychological disturbance), and that should automatically exclude them from a list of great air force commanders.

Lemay actually did admit that if the Allies had lost he would be charged as a war criminal. My understanding of him is that he really believed that his way was the only way and was doing it for his country.

Have you looked at the link?
Regardless of any effect the bombings might have had, production went up (by quite a bit) until 1945, when Allied Forces entered German territory, and the war was ofter after five months.

http://www.feldgrau.com/econo.html

My argument is simply that it did not shorten the war, it did not dent the industrial capacity (simply because there are ways to get around it - Britain did the same under German bombing), but it did kill hundreds of thousands of innocent bystanders, and therefore it was not justified and it was not a good policy.
The responsible Generals who did not see this obvious fact didn't do so because of a personal hatred of the country they were bombing (or in LeMay's case, some psychological disturbance), and that should automatically exclude them from a list of great air force commanders.

It shortened the war by at least a year because of supply chain disruption during periods of heavy Russian Counter Attacks.

Britian, that was bombed to a far lesser extent, likewise had offensive land operations hindered because of supply chain and logistic disruptions. For example, the poor airsupport for certian periods in north africa can be attributed to this.

You see, even if work arounds are found that maintain overal annual output, there are still critical path disruptions (if you are doing the bombing right). Thus all of a sudden a tank division is delayed two weeks in re-fit &c. And so is entered peicemeal into the combat line. Ball bearing supply is disrupted for two weeks, slowing the rest of production at a critical period. These effects get lost in raw output numbers. But can have large impacts on fighting on the front.

Proof is in the pudding, look at the slowdown of the Eastern front offensive when 8th AAF and bomber command suspend strategic operations in the work up for D-day.

I agree that strategic bombing alone cannot win a war, but it can contribute greatly.

I agree that strategic bombing alone cannot win a war, but it can contribute greatly.
The slowing down that you mentioned however was mainly due to attacks on railways and tracks.
It would have been perfectly possible to attack installations like this without sending thousand bomber raids with Phosphorus into cities with millions of innocent inhabitants.

Proof is in the pudding, look at the slowdown of the Eastern front offensive when 8th AAF and bomber command suspend strategic operations in the work up for D-day.
And you wouldn't think that this had anything to do with other factors?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eastern_Front_%28WWII%29#Ukraine:_Autumn_and_Winter_1943

The slowing down that you mentioned however was mainly due to attacks on railways and tracks.
It would have been perfectly possible to attack installations like this without sending thousand bomber raids with Phosphorus into cities with millions of innocent inhabitants.

It's not just disrupting communications, it's also disruption of production. An extra 100 me-109s won't do you any good if they are delivered four or five weeks late. As Nathan Bedford Forrest said, "the one who wins, is the one who gets there firstest with the mostest."

So you disrupt production and you disrupt communications. A double attack on supply.

Anyway, considering Germany's plans for the UK civilian population in the event of the defeat of England, then I find it hard to have much sympathy for the "millions of innocents" who did little or nothing to restrain the Nazis before the outbreak of war with the UK and France.



And you wouldn't think that this had anything to do with other factors?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eastern_Front_%28WWII%29#Ukraine:_Autumn_and_Winter_1943

I believe that Stalin himself, on the advice of his commanders, requested that bombing be resumed for this reason. I'll dig out the telegram sometime, I can't be bothered now.

Oh yeah, it worked to reduce V2 launches too.

Anyway, considering Germany's plans for the UK civilian population in the event of the defeat of England, then I find it hard to have much sympathy for the "millions of innocents" who did little or nothing to restrain the Nazis before the outbreak of war with the UK and France.
Rest assured that in reality it would have been no different to what happened in France.
Most of the Nazi Leadership didn't want to go to war with Britain, because let's face it, Brits and Germans are essentially the same people, they just speak a different language. You need to sort out any information you may have for propaganda from either side.

But anyways, it's interesting to see your reasoning. I suspected as much for some time...but I'll remind you next time a terrorist decides to attack some subway system to slow down life in some Western Metropolis.

Rest assured that in reality it would have been no different to what happened in France.

Bollocks, I've given you the citation to the general orders before. As well as a reference where to find them. Every man between 18-45 was to forced in labour battalions and removed from the home islands to the continent as slave labour. All senior political figure/civil servants/local leaders who could be the focus of resitance movements were to be sent to concentration camps, executed. There's more, but I can't be bothered to type it out.

And given that Ultra allowed the UK to read all the german mail, it was well known to britian.

Most of the Nazi Leadership didn't want to go to war with Britain, because let's face it, Brits and Germans are essentially the same people, they just speak a different language. You need to sort out any information you may have for propaganda from either side.

They wanted to go to war with france. That was never hidden. And france was the UKs ally.

In any case, I don't need to sort out facts from propaganda. You need to read some primary sources about WWII, not what some teacher told you/EU propaganda.

But anyways, it's interesting to see your reasoning. I suspected as much for some time...but I'll remind you next time a terrorist decides to attack some subway system to slow down life in some Western Metropolis.

Like I said, it works. Hell, I am not going to deny that as well as a psychological effect, 9/11 had a palpable effect on the economy. I live in NYC, I saw first hand the costs that can be incurred. There is no question but that x100000 must have a major impact in warfighting capacity.

Doesn't mean I want it to happen to my city again, or that I don't want them to shoot any bastard that tries it. (BTW Germany did shoot at the RAF, as well as detain them without trial).

As the good naval aviator I am, I will put my vote in for Admiral Joseph M. Reeves. He is regarded as the father of carrier aviation. While Commander, Aircraft Squadron, Battle Fleet, he used the Langley as a test bed for procedures that made the US Navy lead the world in sortie rates, i.e. land and recover aircraft. That he could see the need and the method for integrating aviation assets with the naval assets that carried them into battle made him a man ahead of his time.

War Criminals.

So were those who ordered the fire bombing of London, Coventry, and all the other major British cities and towns, oh and not to mention the Nazis, who had this nasty habit of going around killing people in their millions for no other reason other than that they were Trade Unionist, Communist, Socialist, Democrats, disabled, elderly, Christian, Jew, children, Slavic, Monarchist, Anarchist, Homosexual, Lesbian, Bisexual, Prostitute, Ill...



Otherwise, that Brit who organised the UK's air defense system, Dowding, was pretty good at his job too.

Seeing as he organised the failure of the German air dominance attempt over Britain, I would say 'pretty good' is an understatement.


Rest assured that in reality it would have been no different to what happened in France.

Yeah, just people shipped off to concentration camps, people being forced into slave labour, death squads patrolling the streets, people being killed for xenophobic reasons, no need for anybody to panic or worry about the friendly Nazis invading.


Most of the Nazi Leadership didn't want to go to war with Britain, because let's face it, Brits and Germans are essentially the same people, they just speak a different language.

British and Germans yes, British and Nazis, no.


You need to sort out any information you may have for propaganda from either side.

And you need to sort our your information on WW2 and the Nazis.

I see you're German. I get the feeling from Germans that today they have little knowledge about Nazis and what they were really like, or about WW2. Some think Britain started WW2, not realising the Nazis had decided to march into Poland and Czecoslovakia.

This could be because Germany's elders not surprisingly perhaps, don't want to talk about the horrors back then, so have not educated German generations since about the Nazis and WW2, thus today's Germans seeing Dresden's bombing as a war crime (as they were I agree), but London and Coventry's bombing, the Concentration Camps, the liquidation squads in the east and all other Nazi acts as not worthy of raising as a topic to go with Dresden, and forgotten or unknown.

I find this particulary scary if true.

I find this particulary scary if true.
I am truly disgusted that anyone could even think Germans would ever forget.

I am perfectly aware (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=454357&page=7) of what the Nazis did. Indeed, saying differently can be a crime in Germany if you get the wrong judge.

It is your kind that I don't enjoy - the kind that thinks it's okay to be a criminal, just because the other side was worse.
However, you will never hear me argue that the Allies were worse than the Nazis, or even that the Soviets were worse, and neither will you hear that from any other German.

Visit the place, then open your mouth.

Bandits Angels 15 Scramble Scramble


Dowding, first integrated Air Defence network,

Yep, gets my vote too.

I am truly disgusted that anyone could even think Germans would ever forget.


I'm truly disgusted that the Germans could ever forget.


I am perfectly aware (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=454357&page=7) of what the Nazis did.


As am I. I had relatives, whole families that I shall never know because they were wiped out by The Blitz on London.

http://london.allinfo-about.com/features/blitz.html


It is your kind that I don't enjoy - the kind that thinks it's okay to be a criminal, just because the other side was worse.


It's your kind I don't enjoy- people who make out a Nazi invasion of the UK would have been 'rest assured' no different from that of the invasion of France, calling people like Harris war criminals while conveniantly forgetting and/or not mentioning the Luftwaffe's Blitz on London, Coventry and other cities, as well as the genocides.



However, you will never hear me argue that the Allies were worse than the Nazis, or even that the Soviets were worse, and neither will you hear that from any other German.


I already have. Bomber Harris was a war criminal, but no mention of German war criminals....


Visit the place, then open your mouth.


http://www.historylearningsite.co.uk/blitz_and_world_war_two.htm

Visit the place, get educated, then open your mouth, giving you the ability to engage your brain before your mouth instead of vice versa.

Guten Tag.

As am I. I had relatives, whole families that I shall never know because they were wiped out by The Blitz on London.
1) I'm sure you're perfectly aware what the word "Blitz" means.
2) I never said that it didn't happen, nor did I play it down. Indeed, I never even mentioned it, other than while criticising the people who ordered it.
3) And despite it all, are you going to say that killing German civilians is justified because Germans killed British civilians?

It's your kind I don't enjoy- people who make out a Nazi invasion of the UK would have been 'rest assured' no different from that of the invasion of France
Army marches in, takes country, forces it under Nazi dictatorship. Regardless of what the orders may have been, in practice the difference between the occupation of France and the occupation of Britain could not have been much different. And besides, I'm not entirely sure what's so offensive about my statement.

calling people like Harris war criminals while conveniantly forgetting and/or not mentioning the Luftwaffe's Blitz on London, Coventry and other cities, as well as the genocides.
Read my posts in this thread. It was about air force generals. People mentioned Harris and LeMay, and I talked about what they did - which was basically kill civilians - and how it did not achieve their goal, namely shortening the war.
The only Nazi I have talked about was Göring, about whom I had nothing kind to say.
I'm not sure why you'd want to bring up the Holocaust in this thread, because it is utterly irrelevant. People on both sides can be war criminals, and it doesn't take anything away from what they have done. Simply because Hutu killed Tutsi, that hardly excuses the Tutsi killing the Hutu.

I already have. Bomber Harris was a war criminal, but no mention of German war criminals....
Now you're lying. Read above.

Visit the place, get educated, then open your mouth, giving you the ability to engage your brain before your mouth instead of vice versa.
I'm not even sure why I get into this with you. I am a perfectly moderate person, and yet you came into this thread throwing insults not only at me, but at Germany as a whole.
I don't think I said anything that isn't true. Neither LeMay nor Harris cared about the innocent people their orders killed. Occasionally there are even pretty explicit mentions in their orders about how well civilian areas burn, and about how many casualties might hurt German morale. And LeMay himself admitted that he was a war criminal.
That is completely independent of the horrific crimes the Nazis committed.

So to conclude: The Nazi Era was the worst thing that ever happened to Germany. Many Germans were guilty of things that they deserved death for, and a few got it.
Most Germans were not involved with the crimes, some simply fought for their country, others were civilians trying to make do with the time they had been given. In my opinion, "strategic bombing" was revenge for the fact that Germany had started this war, and for Germany bombing British innocent civilians, before any military concerns.
It may take another 50 years before Britain may come to terms with this, but I believe most have already. The suffering in German cities was no less than the suffering in British cities, and no more deserved.

But I am not one to linger in the past. What's done is done, and us arguing will not bring anyone back. Suffice to say that I don't think Harris or LeMay deserve any more mention in a list of the greatest air force commanders than Göring or Hitler would.

Army marches in, takes country, forces it under Nazi dictatorship. Regardless of what the orders may have been, in practice the difference between the occupation of France and the occupation of Britain could not have been much different. And besides, I'm not entirely sure what's so offensive about my statement.



Just stop. There was a complete plan. It was going to be utterly different to the occupation of france, mostly because England refused to surrender.

They were going to shoot anyone who potentially could have formed a leadership cadre for a resistance movement.

And given that a major defence at Nuremberg was: "I was just following orders" I don't see how you can shrug the existence of said orders off.

Yeah, and that "most germans" thing won't wash either. Hitler was pretty fucking popular 'till things went all pear-shaped. I seem to remember him doing pretty well in a plebecite. Though to be fair, Traudl Junge convinced everyone she was shocked by the whole thing, so I don't know why I am surprised.

Finally, if the allies had really wanted to kill germans, they could have easily starved the entire country to death in 45/46, before things heated up with the soviets.

Sometimes, countries are just bad. (I, for example, don't make excuses for the British in India).

Edit: Even the Nazi's got it in the end. "A thousand years will pass and the guilt of Germany will not be erased." - Hans Frank, Governor General of Poland.

Just stop. There was a complete plan. It was going to be utterly different to the occupation of france, mostly because England refused to surrender.


Well, when the Wehrmacht controls the island up as far as say Liverpool, do you think the rest of the country would have still fought on? Or do you think they would have done what the remaining people in France did? Try to stay alive?

Well, when the Wehrmacht controls the island up as far as say Liverpool, do you think the rest of the country would have still fought on? Or do you think they would have done what the remaining people in France did? Try to stay alive?

The not surrendering that the Germans were pissed about was not giving up after France fell.

In any case, the German occupation plan was to be implemented throughout the entire island; even after control was established from Lands End to John O'Groats

1) I'm sure you're perfectly aware what the word "Blitz" means.


Yes, it means lightning, used in referral to bombing London and other cities and towns because it lit towns up with incendiaries and other munitions. To those in the midst of it, it simply meant death, maiming, injury.


2) I never said that it didn't happen, nor did I play it down. Indeed, I never even mentioned it, other than while criticising the people who ordered it.


You criticised Harris as a war criminal, of which I agree may I state a second time, but no mention of the German opposite number as a war criminal either....why?


3) And despite it all, are you going to say that killing German civilians is justified because Germans killed British civilians?


No, and I do think the Dresden bombing was a war crime, but in saying it was a war crime, we must also stress that the London and other british cities and towns being bombed were war crimes too. We can not mention one without the other, both were as bad in their acts, in bombing civillians.


Army marches in, takes country, forces it under Nazi dictatorship. Regardless of what the orders may have been, in practice the difference between the occupation of France and the occupation of Britain could not have been much different. And besides, I'm not entirely sure what's so offensive about my statement.


You don't see what's wrong in saying in a previous statement 'rest assured' the invasion of Britain after France would have been no different, saying it in a calm and dismissive manner, neverminding the death squads that would have followed the army marching in who would have themselves caused devastation, or that it would have been in the name of forcing a nation under Nazi dictatorship.

Erm..hello?!


Read my posts in this thread. It was about air force generals. People mentioned Harris and LeMay, and I talked about what they did - which was basically kill civilians - and how it did not achieve their goal, namely shortening the war.

That's debatable. destroyed civillian and military morale, and the city then fell to the Soviets


The only Nazi I have talked about was Göring, about whom I had nothing kind to say.

He too was a war criminal, was he not?


I'm not sure why you'd want to bring up the Holocaust in this thread, because it is utterly irrelevant.

No, I'm sorry, but it is relevant, and became relevant as soon as you said Harris was a war criminal, because the topic turned at that point to war criminals, and in doing so, war criminals from the other side had to be mentioned to balance the point of view made by youself.


People on both sides can be war criminals, and it doesn't take anything away from what they have done. Simply because Hutu killed Tutsi, that hardly excuses the Tutsi killing the Hutu.

I agree, but again, in mentioning war criminals on one side, we should not forget the war criminals on the other side either.


I'm not even sure why I get into this with you. I am a perfectly moderate person, and yet you came into this thread throwing insults not only at me, but at Germany as a whole.

Oh get a grip. I've not insulted you or Germany, I've actually pointed out what may be a flaw in today's German's knowledge of WW2 and the holocaust, not an insult, a concern, and a concern in relation to your view about WW2, indeed I only think you have insulted yourself in some of your posts in your relaxed way you talk about countries falling under nazi rule.


I don't think I said anything that isn't true. Neither LeMay nor Harris cared about the innocent people their orders killed. Occasionally there are even pretty explicit mentions in their orders about how well civilian areas burn, and about how many casualties might hurt German morale. And LeMay himself admitted that he was a war criminal.
That is completely independent of the horrific crimes the Nazis committed.


And they were war criminals, but no mention of German war criminals on the other side, and of the bombings of British towns and cities, and other nation's towns and cities at the hands of Nazis. Let's have balance please.


So to conclude: The Nazi Era was the worst thing that ever happened to Germany. Many Germans were guilty of things that they deserved death for, and a few got it.

So to conclude: The Nazi Era was the worst thing that ever happened not just to Germany, but the majority of Europe too.


Most Germans were not involved with the crimes, some simply fought for their country,

That is true, but so it is that some fought for the Nazi philosophy, and enacted war crimes based on that philosophy.


others were civilians trying to make do with the time they had been given.


As were those in London and other towns and cities.


In my opinion, "strategic bombing" was revenge for the fact that Germany had started this war, and for Germany bombing British innocent civilians, before any military concerns.

And I agree completely. It was bloodletting for bloodletting. It was two wrongs that did not make a right.

My Grandmother was one of my relatives to survive The London Blitz.

She condemns the bombing of Dresden, because she knows what it was like.

She was against the war on Iraq for the same reasons, that and the dubious reasons for going to war with Iraq.


It may take another 50 years before Britain may come to terms with this, but I believe most have already. The suffering in German cities was no less than the suffering in British cities, and no more deserved.

I've come to terms it, but I also understand in confronting these issues, we must remember the war crimes of both sides and condemn them in equal measure, to reflect from them, and learn, for the sake of future generations.


But I am not one to linger in the past.

Never linger, but remember.

Lest we Forget.


What's done is done, and us arguing will not bring anyone back. Suffice to say that I don't think Harris or LeMay deserve any more mention in a list of the greatest air force commanders than Göring or Hitler would.

Agreed, and Harris and LeMay are not on my list. bombing a city full of civillians and condemning them to severe maiming and death is not how great air force commanding, and the same indeed goes for Goring and Hitler.